Salvation In the
Old Testament
John S. Feinberg
SOURCE: John S.
Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, eds. (1981): Tradition
and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg.
JOHN S. FEINBERG (M.A., Ph.D.,
[NOTE: Underlines
were not in the original article. It is done by Kwing Hung to highlight what he
regards as important points.]
What does the
Bible teach about salvation? Ask this question of most people, and they will
respond with their understanding of the New Testament’s teaching on salvation.
One can search for hours and find little written about salvation in the Old
Testament. Biblical theologians tend to discuss it more often than systematic
theologians, but neither group devotes much attention to it. Moreover, if one
were to peruse course outlines for most classes taught in seminaries or Bible
colleges in soteriology, he would find that the question of salvation in the
Old Testament receives little or no treatment whatsoever.
If it is
difficult to find discussions on the Old Testament’s approach to the broad
theme of salvation, it is even harder to find treatments of the Old Testament’s
perspective on the specific matter of salvation of the individual. Although
there are studies of such topics as corporate election and national salvation
(especially when the topic is physical deliverance from some kind of bondage or
evil),1 it seems that theologians and exegetes have tended to shy
away from a consideration of the Old Testament teaching about how an individual
was to acquire spiritual salvation. Why this should be so is not entirely
clear. Perhaps it has stemmed at least partially from a feeling, on the one
hand, that the Old Testament really says nothing different than the New on the
matter of personal salvation. Or perhaps it stems from a fear that what the Old
Testament teaches about salvation is so radically different from the teaching
of the New Testament that close attention to it would only serve to confuse us
about God’s manner of dealing with personal salvation, and might even lead us to
the theologically damaging conclusion that God has been inconsistent in regard
to the matter of salvation.
In view of these
considerations, I suggest that the study of salvation in the Old Testament is
more urgently needed, and it is my intention to consider several issues related
to the Old Testament’s teaching about the spiritual salvation of the
individual. Obviously, it would be impossible in a study of this length to
cover every relevant aspect of Old Testament teaching, but I should like to
address three main topics. First, I want to consider the method
of salvation. Does Scripture teach more than one way of salvation—an Old
Testament and a New Testament way? This matter is of interest not only from the
standpoint of coming to a proper understanding of scriptural teaching, but also
because many have thought that dispensationalism involves or even necessitates
a commitment to multiple ways of salvation. What I shall argue in regard to the
first issue is that neither the approach of Scripture nor that of
dispensationalism necessitates holding
to multiple methods of salvation. Second, I want to discuss the implementation
of salvation. To say that Scripture teaches only one way of salvation is not
to specify what it is or how it has been implemented at various times in
history, especially during Old Testament times. Third, I want to
consider the relationship of Old Testament sacrifices to Christ’s sacrifice
and to discuss as well the exact soteriological
function of sacrifices in the Old Testament system. Involved in the
discussion of the function of the sacrifices will be a treatment of their efficacy,
especially in view of the statement in Hebrews 10:4 that “not all the blood of
bulls and goats could take away sin.”
l. THE METHOD OF SALVATION
How many ways of
salvation does Scripture teach? Reading various theologians, one might
initially assume that the question is a waste of time, for all seem to assert
that Scripture teaches only one way of salvation operative in all economies
and at all times. For example, after presenting opposing viewpoints, Hodge
emphatically argues:
In opposition to these different views the common doctrine of the Church
has ever been, that the plan of salvation has been the
same from the beginning. There is the same promise of deliverance from the evils
of the apostasy, the same Redeemer, the same condition required for
participation in the blessings of redemption, and the same complete salvation
for all who embrace the offers of divine mercy.2
Likewise, Payne
argues that in spite of some difference, the doctrine of regeneration is taught
in the Old Testament as well as in the New. He explains:
This definition of regeneration as being “in Christ” by no means,
however, eliminates the doctrine of the new birth from the Old Testament. There
is but one, unified testament, God’s sole plan of salvation, through which
Christ offers a redemption that is equally effective for the saints of both
dispensations. Christ states that Abraham, in the patriarchal period, rejoiced
to see His day, “And he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Jesus was the Mediator
of the older testament, as well as the newer (Heb. 9:15); and, since it is
true that no man cometh unto the Father but by Him (John 14:6) and yet, since
the saints of the older dispensation did indeed come to the father (Ps. 73:24),
they must have been made perfect in Him
(Heb. 11:40).3
Examples such as
the preceding could be proliferated seemingly ad in finitum, but of course, if that is the case, is it even
worthwhile to ask the question about how many ways Scripture teaches? The
question is important because there are many who think there is much
disagreement over the issue. Many nondispensational writers (such as Hodge and Payne,
quoted above), who hold to one method of salvation, have accused dispensationalists
of teaching multiple ways of salvation. They assume that since the
dispensationalist consistently differentiates between God’s program for Israel
and His program for the church, since he emphasizes that God institutes
different economies with men at various times, and especially since the
dispensationalist claims there are significant differences between the
dispensation called law and the dispensation called grace (even the labels of
the dispensations supposedly tip us off to different methods of salvation), the
dispensationalist must hold that Scripture teaches multiple ways of salvation.
For example, Daniel Fuller, after quoting the old Scofield Reference Bible, concludes:
Hence Dispensationalism, as expounded by one of its foremost
systematizers, teaches two ways of salvation: that during the era of law, obedience
to it was a condition of salvation, whereas during the age of grace, salvation
comes simply through faith in Christ.4
Payne does not
put the matter quite so bluntly as Fuller, but as he reasserts
the unity of God’s redemptive plan throughout Scripture, the message in regard
to dispensationalism is the same as Fuller’s. Payne writes:
More serious, however, than its misapplication of particular prophecies,
is what amounts to dispensationalism’s repudiation of the whole, unified
redemptive plan of God in human history. Indeed, the normative truthfulness of
the older testament of the past is dependent upon its essential identity with, and fulfillment in, the newer testament of the present
and the future. Correspondingly, the blessing for the modern Church, as this is
contained in the Old Testament, can be appropriated by today’s saints only when
they accept their own equation, as the Israel of God, with that ancient
These citations
level devastating attacks at dispensationalism, especially if
dispensationalists in fact hold multiple methods of salvation, whereas
Scripture teaches one method. As a matter of fact, dispensationalists (older
and contemporary) do hold that Scripture teaches only one way of salvation. In
all honesty, however, it must be admitted that statements made by certain
dispensationalists in the past appeared to teach multiple ways of salvation.
That such careless statements did not reflect the full
thinking of those theologians (as can be seen from other statements they made)
seems to have escaped many critics of dispensationalism. One such unguarded
statement, however, appeared in the old Scofield
Reference Bible:
As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ
(Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as
the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good
works as a fruit of salvation.6
Fuller (see
above) cites this as evidence that Scofield taught multiple ways of salvation,
one by law and one by grace. Certainly, such a statement would appear to be
problematic. What seems to be equally problematic, however, is that Fuller
never quotes the Scofield Reference Bible
when it states that “law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer.”7
Fuller went on to claim that although some dispensationalists hold to the view
that Scripture teaches only one way of salvation, he claimed that it was a new
trend in dispensationalism and not really consistent with its basic line of
thought.8 Fuller was at least willing to admit that
dispensationalists make statements contrary to the multiple methods position.
But he still thought that this was merely a new development in
dispensationalism. Many critics of dispensationalism have not even bothered to
mention such statements as those cited by Fuller. Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism Today has presented
ample evidence that older as well as more recent dispensationalists in fact
hold to only one way of salvation being taught in Scripture.9 It
is truly unfortunate that in spite of all the ink that as has been spilled on
the subject, the commonly held caricature of dispensationalism (perhaps even
held by some uninformed who claim to be dispensationalists themselves) is that
it is committed to and even necessitates the notion that Scripture teaches
multiple ways of salvation. The old Scofield
Reference Bible is cited as proof, and that is supposed to settle the
matter. Of course, it is equally important to note what the New Scofield Reference Bible (the work
of many dispensationalists) says. Writers such as Payne (Theology of the Older Testament) and Fuller (The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism) can hardly be faulted for
not taking it into account in their works, since the New Scofield Reference Bible was published after their works were
completed. However, some changes have been made.’ The comment concerning the
inability of law to justify has not been removed from the notes on Galatians 3.
Moreover, the objectionable comments on law and grace have been totally removed
from the notes on John 1. In their place we read the following:
In its fullness, grace began with the ministry of Christ involving His
death and resurrection, for He came to die for sinners (In. 1:17; Mt. 11:28-30;
16:21; 20:28; Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24-25). Under the former dispensation, law was
shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race (Gal.
3:21-22). Prior to the cross man’s salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom.
4:3), being grounded on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, viewed anticipatively by
God. . .; now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received
by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior..., with holiness of life and
good works following as the fruit of salvation. . . .10
Certainly, the
above statement reflects dispensational thinking, but it also clearly speaks of
unified method of salvation—by grace through faith.
Though this discussion of what dispensationalists claim is interesting
(especially to a dispensationalist who holds to only one method of salvation),
it would seem that there is a much more important question to be asked and
answered. The question of
greater significance is whether dispensationalism as a system necessitates
holding a view of multiple ways of salvation. A description of what
dispensationalists hold is one thing, but a much more important question is
whether the system is consistent with a single method of salvation view, a
multiple method of salvation view, or both. In other words, what position could
a dispensationalist hold without contradicting his system on the matter of the
ways of salvation? This is a significant question because the underlying
assumption in the attacks of Fuller, Payne, and others, is not just that
dispensationalists hold multiple ways of salvation, but that the system demands
such a view. The complaint, then, is not so much against what
dispensationalists are thought to believe as what the logic of the system
purportedly demands.
Does
dispensationalism as a system demand adherence to multiple ways of salvation?
In order to understand the logic of dispensationalism, it is necessary first to
specify its essence. The next task is to determine what sort of position(s) on
the method of salvation would fit such a system. Specifying the essence of
dispensationalism is not at all easy. A starting point, however, is Ryrie’s
suggestion. According to Ryrie, there are three necessary conditions of
dispensationalism: (1) the distinction between Israel and the church, (2) the usage
of a system of literal hermeneutics and (3) the belief that the underlying
purpose of God in the world is to produce his glory.11 Ryrie is
saying that whatever other views a dispensationalist holds, those three
conditions mark him off as a dispensationalist.
Although Ryrie’s
suggestions are indeed helpful, I am not convinced that they present an
accurate picture. It would seem unfair to assume that nondispensationalist
theologians never distinguish between
PRINCIPLES OF
DISPENSATIONALISM
The matter of
hermeneutics is the crucial issue for dispensationalism. For example, one who
consistently uses literal hermeneutics will be on his way to distinguish
consistently between
Many
nondispensationalists claim that they consistently interpret literally. But
their understanding of how literal hermeneutics operates is different. In
particular, they argue that literal interpretation demands that many of the Old
Testament references to
The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets Old Testament
prophecies in a way not suggested by the
Old Testament context.
Let us take first a very simple illustration. Matthew 2:15 quotes from
Hosea 11:1 to prove from Scripture that Jesus must come from
The main point in the preceding section is that many Old Testament passages
which applied in their historical setting to literal
Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a nondisipensational
theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal
interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the
explicit teaching of the New Testament.12
The last
paragraph of Ladd’s statement is crucial to the discussion. If one operates as
Ladd suggests for the reasons he suggests, one can, it seems, legitimately
claim to be using literal hermeneutics. However, it seems that what ultimately
generates such a procedure of interpretation as suggested by Ladd is a
misunderstanding of the nature of typology (whether Ladd, in fact, makes such
an error is beyond my knowledge, but it would seem that the difficulty I shall
mention is reflected in the thinking of many nondispensationalists).
Undoubtedly, the cases cited by Ladd and others are Old Testament types of
something in the New Testament. The problem stems from thinking that, just
because we understand the relation of the Old Testament type to its New
Testament anti type, either the Old Testament figure has no meaning other than the
meaning of the anti type in the New Testament, or the meaning of the type in
its own context is simply to be neglected. The point about typology is
that the Old Testament type must retain its own meaning in its own
context, even though it simultaneously foreshadows its antitype in the New
Testament and even has a different meaning in the New Testament context. For example,
Joseph may be seen as a type of Christ, which is not to say that the story of
Joseph has no importance on its own apart from its relation to Christ. As a
matter of fact, neglecting the integrity of the Old Testament meaning of Joseph
undermines the basis for the type/antitype relation between Joseph and Christ.
The failure of nondispensational interpretation at this point, then, is that
its view of typology (a misunderstanding of typology, that is), ignores or
minimizes the meaning of the Old Testament event or person in its own setting,
just because it takes on another meaning in a New Testament context.
The fact that a
type must retain its distinctive meanings in both the Old Testament and New
Testament contexts is perhaps never so clearly seen as in the case of Hosea
11:1/Matthew 2:15, an example Ladd gives to prove that Old Testament passages
are reinterpreted in the New Testament. Ladd is unquestionably right about
Hosea 11:1 being given a new meaning in Matthew 2:15. What is problematic is
that we are given the impression that the meaning of Hosea 11:1 in Hosea 11:1
either becomes the meaning given it in Matthew 2:15, or the meaning of Hosea
11:1 in its context is to be neglected. This really becomes problematic when
one recognizes that Hosea 11:1 refers to a past historical event. In the case
of Joel 2/Acts 2, one could argue (though incorrectly) that since Joel 2 was yet
future to Joel when he wrote it, it must be understood exclusively in terms of
Acts 2. However, Hosea 11 presents a different kind of case in that the event
referred to in Hosea 11:1 (the Exodus) was already a historical fact at the
time Hosea wrote. Therefore, even though the passage is to be seen as typical
of Christ, and even though Matthew makes that typological connection, the
meaning of Hosea 11:1 in its own context must not be ignored, for the sake of
the type/antitype relation and because the passage had a historical reference
when Hosea wrote it. The matter of typology can be summarized as follows: (1)
a type must have meaning in its own context; (2) the meaning of the type in its
own context is essential for a type/antitype relationship (otherwise we
have an example of a parable or perhaps an allegory, but not an example of
typology); and (3) ignoring items 1 and 2 threatens the very integrity of the
Old Testament. The problem that arises from nondispensational approaches to
typology is that they seem to neglect items 1 and 2, at best, and deny them, at
worst. Consequently, whether one begins with the New Testament and goes to the
Old Testament, or vice versa, should not make a bit of difference in one’s
interpretation of the Old Testament as long as one properly understands the
implications of typology. The nondispensationalist may indeed be trying to
interpret Scripture in a consistently literal way, but as long as he
incorporates a faulty approach to typology, his understanding of and
application of literal hermeneutics is problematic.
The claim that
dispensationalists actually interpret figuratively on occasion is definitely
erroneous. The error stems from neglecting to distinguish between figurative
language (e.g., figures of speech) and interpreting figuratively. The former refers to certain phenomena
of language itself, whereas the latter refers to a method of interpreting those
or any phenomena of language. To interpret figuratively means to decide the meaning
of a word or sentence without paying close attention to the denotative or
connotative meaning of the words involved, without heeding the demands of
context, or without paying attention to grammatical considerations. Literal
interpretation, on the other hand, seeks to come to the meaning which is demanded
by the denotative and/or connotative meaning of the words under consideration,
by the context and by grammar. The one who interprets literally must always be
able to justify his interpretation on the grounds of the phenomena within the
context. A figurative interpretation is tied only loosely to the context.
Consequently, we can say that either figures of speech or nonfigurative
language may be interpreted figuratively or literally. Recognizing that
language contains figures of speech does not indicate that an exegete
interprets figuratively.
The keys to
determining whether or not one is a dispensationalist rest in hermeneutical,
ecclesiological, and eschatological issues, not soteriology. Obviously, the
distinction between
Notice that at
this point I am not speaking about what Scripture actually teaches. My concern
is to focus on the intrinsic ideas of dispensationalism and to ask what a
dispensationalist could hold without contradicting his position, even if
Scripture does not teach something that he could hold. As for the matter of
hermeneutics, it should also be obvious that literal hermeneutics as I have
described them would lead one to hold multiple ways of salvation, if Scripture,
interpreted literally, demanded such. Such hermeneutics would lead one to hold
a single way of salvation, if Scripture, interpreted literally, demanded such.
As a result, I must reiterate that there is nothing intrinsic to dispensationalism’s
hermeneutics that necessitates either a single or multiple methods view. I know
there are critics of dispensationalism who would disagree, but I think they are
reacting to what they think dispensationalists hold, rather than to the logic
of the system itself. The point is that neither a dispensationalist’s
hermeneutics nor any doctrinal views he has gained from exegesis of Scripture
commit him to holding a multiple or single method view of salvation. Before the
dispensationalist does a detailed study of the text of Scripture, it is not
inevitable that he will come to any particular view on the method of salvation.
In the preceding
discussion, we demonstrated to be invalid the charge that a dispensationalist
must hold one or the other view regarding single or multiple methods of
salvation. However, that does not answer the question of what a
dispensationalist should hold. Obviously, what he should hold is whatever
Scriptures actually teaches, regardless of what positions could be made to fit
with his system. That being the case, what should he hold? Given what
Scripture actually says, it would seem that a dispensationalist should hold to
multiple methods of salvation if and only if Scripture, when interpreted
according to literal hermeneutics as the dispensationalist understands such,
teaches such a view. In view of the comments in Galatians 3:11 about the law,
and in view of Hebrews 11, which teaches that Old Testament saints were
saved by faith, it would seem that a dispensationalist should not hold that
more than one method of salvation is taught in Scripture. Of course, the dispensationalist
may be inconsistent in his hermeneutics, and in that case a multiple methods view
would be understandable (but wrong). However, if he interprets Scripture by the
method his system tells him to use, then he will not in fact hold to multiple
methods of salvation. Happily, most dispensationalists, for whatever
reason, do hold that only one way of salvation is taught in Scripture. To that
view I also subscribe.
Having come to
this point, we have indeed accomplished much. We have established that (1) it
is the consensus of both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists that
Scripture teaches only one method of salvation, that (2) dispensational ism as
a system, contrary to the views of some, does not necessitate multiple methods
of salvation, even though it could fit such a position, that (3)
dispensationalism also fits with a single” method of salvation view, and that
(4) a dispensationalist, to be consistent with his foundational principle,
should hold that only one method of salvation is taught in Scripture.
But what is that
one method of salvation? There are many differing opinions on that subject. The
disagreement does not lie in the matter of whether salvation is by faith or
works. Dispensationalists and nondispensationalists agree that it is by faith.
Hebrews 11 lists the great Old Testament heroes of the faith and indicates that
they were saved by faith. Moreover, as one studies the list, it becomes obvious
that those included represent different stages in the progress of God’s
revelation concerning himself and His plan of salvation. Both dispensational
and nondispensational interpreters agree that in all ages God had graciously
required of man faith, not works. Oehler states the matter nicely when he
writes:
The law, by always pointing
back to God’s electing grace, and
onward to God’s just retribution, as the foundation of the righteousness of the
law, presupposes faith, i.e. such a trusting submission to the covenant God as was exhibited in Abraham’s believing adherence to the Divine promise. This is in
conformity with that fundamental declaration, Gen. xv.
6, “He believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness”. . . .
Accordingly the requirement of faith runs through the entire Old Testament. The
leading of
Faith then is
recognized by all as requisite for salvation. But faith in what
or whom? At this point
opinions diverge. That divergence does not fall neatly along the lines of
dispensationalism versus nondispensationalism. Even those working within
the same broad system of theology do not entirely agree on this matter. But
there is a nondispensational approach that has many affinities to other
nondispensational positions (though not identical to all such positions).
The position of Charles
Hodge on this issue is most helpful, for he not only claims that faith is
the key, but he also explains in detail what the revealed content of faith is
at all times. Hodge begins by explaining that in all dispensations, Jesus
Christ is the Redeemer. He writes:
It is no less clear that the Redeemer is the same under all
dispensations. He who was predicted as the seed of the woman, as the seed of
Abraham, the Son of David, the Branch, the Servant of the Lord, the Prince of
Peace, is our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh.
He, therefore, from the beginning has been held up as the hope of the world,
the SALVATOR HOMINUM.14
Hodge’s statement
is most interesting. On the one hand, I can agree with parts of it, for in a
certain sense which I shall mention, I hold that, indeed, Christ is the
Redeemer at all times. On the other hand, it is another thing to say that Jesus
Christ is the One who from the beginning “has been held up as the hope of the
world.” If Hodge means nothing more than that Christ’s work is the ground of
redemption for all ages, I have no problems. If, on the other hand, the
statement means that Jesus Christ has literally been the revealed content
presented to men from the very beginning, I have tremendous problems. It is
definitely debatable as to how much understanding there was of the full import
of the prophecies about the Messiah or how much the truth about Christ’s coming
redemptive work was involved in the presentation of the gospel in the Old
Testament. What does not seem to be the case is that men consciously believed
in Jesus Christ, for we do not find until the New Testament the explicitly stated
revelation that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Christ. Although it is
always possible that the Holy Spirit could have revealed the truth about Jesus
to an eager seeker, it seems to overlook the progress of revelation to say
that knowledge of Jesus was universally or even widely known in Old Testament
times. Consequently, when Hodge specifies the content of faith, he goes too
far. He writes:
As the same promise was made to those who lived before the advent which
is now made to us in the gospel, as the same Redeemer was revealed to them who
is presented as the object of faith to us, it of necessity follows that the
condition, or terms of salvation, was the same then as now. It was not mere
faith or trust in God, or simply piety, which was required, but faith in the
promised Redeemer, or faith in the promise of redemption through the Messiah.15
Although I would
not want to deny that God revealed as early as Genesis 3:15 that One would come
to take care of the sin problem, I find it very hard to accept the notion that
the promise of redemption through Jesus Christ was so clearly understood or so
exclusively held to be the sole revealed content of God’s method for handling
sin, as Hodge seems to think. It seems that those who hold this view are so
concerned to uphold the unity of God’s redemptive program that they do not
entirely do justice to the truth of the progress of revelation. Moreover, if
there were no other way to uphold the unity of God’s redemptive work, I suspect
I would be drawn to this view, but as I shall point out, there seems to be a
satisfactory way to uphold the unity of redemption without weakening the truth of
progressive revelation.
Some might object
that Old Testament believers obviously knew the truth about Christ, in light of
passages like 1 Peter 1:11-12 and Hebrews 11:13. At the outset, let me make two
points. First, I am not denying that God could
have revealed the truth about Jesus to Old Testament saints. But I doubt that
He did on any widespread basis. The passages in question do not state that
He did. Second, even if someone like Hodge is correct, and even if the
dispensationalist agrees with Hodge, I do not see that such an eventuality
would necessitate abandoning dispensationalism. Since dispensationalism is not
about whether Christ was the revealed content of faith in the Old Testament, a
dispensationalist can certainly hold that He was, without having to surrender
his dispensationalism.
Now, what does 1
Peter 1:10-12 actually say? According to verse 11, the Old Testament prophets
wanted to know what the Holy Spirit was revealing about the kind of time (poion kairon) it would be and the kind of
events there would be (tina),
when the Holy Spirit informed them of the sufferings of the Messiah. What is
obvious from this verse is that Old Testament saints did know about a coming
suffering Savior. No one disagrees at such information was available. But
it seems erroneous to conclude on the basis of this passage that they knew that
Jesus of Nazareth would be that suffering Messiah. In verse 12 we are told that
in response to their questions, the prophets learned essentially that the time of
fulfillment was not their own time. They were prophesying of things that would
occur in the lifetime of others. Certainly, there is no statement to the effect
that they were or were not informed that the Messiah would be Jesus of
Nazareth. They may have been so informed, but 1 Peter 1:10-12 neither proves
nor disproves that. Arguments from silence are consistent with everything and
consequently prove nothing.
When we turn to
Hebrews 11:13, we find a similar case to that of 1 Peter 1:10-12. The verse
speaks of many Old Testament saints who, through the time of Abraham, died
without seeing the promises of God fulfilled, though they were aware of those
promises. Considering the promises made through the time of Abraham, it becomes
clear that God had revealed that some day a redeemer would come to put away
sin. It is not stated that the redeemer would be Jesus of Nazareth.
Consequently, it would be entirely possible for the saint to see the promises,
as verse 13 says, and still not know about Jesus. It would also be possible
that he had been told about Jesus. But Hebrews 11:13 does not say whether these
saints in fact did or did not know about Jesus of Nazareth. Again, the argument
from silence is inconclusive.
In summarizing this
matter, Payne’s comments are helpful in gaining a proper perspective of the
issue. Payne writes, “Union with Christ is the only way of salvation; and ‘Christ
in you, the hope of glory,’ was a ‘mystery’ that was hidden to the Old
Testament saints (Col. 1:27) only in respect to the exact knowledge of the
Savior’s Person, and not in respect to its practical efficacy.”16
Though I cannot fully agree with Payne’s perspective on the relation of union
with Christ to the Old Testament saint, I agree with his comments about
knowledge of Jesus in the Old Testament.
The basic
objection to a position like Hodge’s is that it does not seem to pay adequate
attention to the implications of progressive revelation. Consequently, the Old
Testament saint seems to be granted more revelation and more understanding of
revelation than Scripture seems to indicate he actually had.
2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SALVATION
Is it possible to
give proper weight to the progress of revelation without fragmenting the
redemptive plan of God to the point of claiming that God operates according to
multiple ways of salvation? I should like to argue that a commitment to
allowing the truth of progressive revelation to hold its full weight does not necessitate
a subscription to multiple methods of salvation. In order to support this
claim, I shall present what I take to be God’s one method of salvation,
operative throughout Scripture. At the outset, it would seem to be crucially
important to understand that though God always uses the same method of saving
men (the point which preserves unity of redemption and of the redeemed), what
He reveals about that method is progressively amplified and necessitates
changes in the way the believer expresses the fact that he has appropriated God’s
one method of salvation (the points that allow for the diversity demanded by progressive
revelation). The full import of this statement will be understood as I unfold
what I take to be God’s method of salvation.
In attempting to
set forth God’s plan of salvation, it is essential to recognize initially that at
all times in history salvation must begin with God’s gracious activity.
Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2:8 that “by grace are ye saved,” is true of
every believer, regardless of the dispensation in which he lives. The major
reason that salvation must be a result of God’s gracious activity lies in the
condition of man. God demands absolute righteousness of any creature who would be saved. But no one except Christ ever met
such standards (Psalm 14:3; Rom. 3:10-12). The problem is complicated by the
fact that not only is no one righteous, but that no one even has the ability
to live a perfectly righteous life (John. 1:13; 3:5; 6:44; 8:34; Rom. 7:18,
24; 8:7, 8; 2 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 2:1, 8-10; Heb. 11:6). Given man’s inability to do
right in God’s eyes (man’s problem ever since the Fall),
if God were to deal with men in strict justice alone, no one would be saved.
Thus, since God has chosen to save men, He extends divine grace toward them.
The ways in which such grace expresses itself may vary
at different times, but what is constant is that God’s method of salvation is always
a grace method, never a works method.
God works, then,
in a gracious way to save people. But how does He express that grace? In other
words, what specific gracious thing(s) has God done to save men? In order to
understand God’s gracious dealings in saving men, it would seem helpful to make
and explain some key distinctions.17 I should like to distinguish
between: (a) the basis, or ground, of salvation, (b) the requirement for
salvation, (c) the ultimate content of salvation, (d) the specific revealed
content of salvation to be accepted, and (e) the believer’s expression of his
salvation. The first three are constant throughout all dispensations,
whereas the latter two change. This approach, as we shall see,
allow for unity of salvation without ignoring the progress of revelation
and God’s different administering orders for the world. It should also be noted
that the first item deals with the objective work of God which provides and
pays for salvation so that it is available to be offered, whereas the latter
four focus on items involved in the subjective application of salvation to the
believer and his life as a believer.
a. BASIS, OR
GROUND, OF SALVATION
God has
graciously acted in an objective way so that man can be saved. What He has done
constitutes the basis, or ground, of salvation. In other words, because of this
act, God can extend salvation to men at all times. The basis of salvation is
nothing other than God’s gracious provision of the death of Christ. The
reason that Christ’s death must be the basis is stated in Leviticus 17:11,
according to which blood must be shed, if there is to be atonement for sin (cf.
Heb. 9:22). But not just any blood fully and finally removes sin. If so, one
could argue that the blood of sacrificial animals fully and completely removes
sin. However, the writer of Hebrews explicitly states that the blood of
bulls and goats could not take away sin, for only the blood of Christ could do
that (Heb. 10:4ff.). The implications of this verse for the significance of
Old Testament sacrifices will be discussed more fully later. At this point,
suffice it to say that the verse implies that animal sacrifices could not in
any dispensation be the ultimate basis for God’s removal of sin. Moreover,
there is no indication whatsoever in Scripture that the blood of a human being
would atone for sin. Therefore, since God demands the shedding of blood for
removing sin, and since no human or animal blood will suffice to atone for sin
fully, the ultimate ground, or basis, upon which God can offer salvation at any
time in history has to be the sacrifice of Christ.
Christ’s
sacrifice is the ground, but what does that involve? First, it does not mean that at all times in human
history the death of Jesus Christ was already a historical fact. Though God
decreed the event prior to history, it still had to be accomplished within
history. It did not become a historical fact until it actually occurred.
Second, claiming that Christ’s death is the ground of salvation does not mean that at all times in history God
had revealed that the death of Jesus of Nazareth is the sole basis for granting
salvation. It is most unlikely that anyone knew that before His advent. Progressive
revelation must be given its due. What is meant by saying that Christ’s death
is the ground of salvation is that from God’s perspective, the sacrifice of
Christ is the objective act on the grounds of which God offers salvation in any
age. In trying to understand how this can be so before the event occurs historically,
we must distinguish between God’s perspective and man’s.
God has known about Christ’s death from all eternity. Since He decreed
it; it was an accomplished fact in His thinking long before it was an
accomplished fact in history. Because God knows that the deed will be done
(since He decreed it), and because He sees all of history (including the
completed work of Christ) at once, God can grant man salvation, even before
the sacrifice is performed in history. There could never have been a time
in human history when God would learn that He had been mistaken about the fact
that Christ would sacrifice Himself for sin. Although there is no past,
present, or future for God, He, as an omniscient being, cannot help but know
what is past, present, and future for the creatures He
has made. Thus, God always sees Christ’s work as an accomplished fact. But
before it was done within history God knew that the death of Jesus Christ had
not been accomplished in history. Man, limited by his human perspective, did
not know about the atoning work of Jesus Christ until God revealed it and then accomplished
it within human history.
In sum, in order
to gain a proper perspective on this matter, one must avoid two mistakes, both
of which involve confusing God’s perspective with man’s.
The first error is thinking that God neither knows nor sees any more than we
do. The people of the Old Testament era did not know that Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus
would die, and that His death would be the basis of salvation. But that is not
to say that God did not know. God did know at all times that Christ’s death was
as good as accomplished. Consequently, He could grant salvation on the basis of
it. The second error comes from assuming that because God understood the full
import of the death of Jesus and granted salvation on the basis of it, everyone
in the Old Testament also must have had that information and must have
understood it. I see no reason that God’s knowledge and man’s must have
coincided on this issue before Jesus. I see no indication that at all times God’s
and man’s knowledge of these matters totally coincided.
b. REQUIREMENT OF
SALVATION
This refers to
what is required of man in order for him to be saved (although God enables man
to do what he does). It does not refer to what God must do either objectively
or in the subjective application process in order for man to be saved.
Scripture is very clear that no one is saved by attempting to perform a good
act in his own power. In fact, no one on his own is capable of an act that
is righteous in God’s eyes (Psalm14:3; Rom. 3:10-12). It is certainly
doubtful that even Adam, before the Fall, totally on
his own without any divine enablement was capable of performing any act of
moral good in God’s eyes. When Adam did act on his own, he committed the first
sin (Gen. 3). Not only is it futile to attempt to gain salvation by good works
in general, but as Scripture teaches clearly even complete adherence to the
Mosaic law (difficult as that would be) would not justify anyone (Gal. 2:16;
3:11). Performance of religious rites simply for the sake of the rite will not
save anyone, for God desires something else (Psalm 51:16-17). According to
Scripture, the sole requirement for salvation is that man exercise faith in
the provision that God has revealed. Faith is not to be considered a
meritorious work on man’s part, for Scripture affirms everywhere that faith,
as all of salvation is God’s gift to man (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23; 2 Tim. 2:9).
There is no question that faith is clearly taught as the sole requirement for
salvation in the New Testament. Equally clear is the message that faith was the
only prerequisite during Old Testament times. Even if one were to miss that
point from a study of the Old Testament, he could hardly miss the explicit
teaching in Hebrews 11 on what men in the Old Testament period did to be saved.
God always requires that man respond in faith to whatever He reveals concerning
salvation.
c. ULTIMATE
CONTENT OF SALVATION
Scripture is very
clear about this matter. The ultimate object of faith in any and every age
is God Himself. The ultimate issue at any time in history is whether a man will
take God at His word and exercise faith in the provision for salvation which God
reveals. The message of Hebrews 11 is again instructive, for it repeatedly
emphasizes that each hero of faith did what he did because of his faith in
God (cf. Rom. 4:3). Moreover, it is interesting to note that the prophets
do not call the backslidden people to return to the sacrificial system or even
to a renewed belief in the promises of God. Instead, the plea is to return to
God (Jer. 3:1, 12, 14,22; 4:1; Ezek. 33:11; Hos. 12:6;
14:1; Joel 2:12 are examples of the prevalence of this message in the prophets).18
Clearly, whatever religious rites, good works, and so on a person might begin
or resume, and whatever promises he might reaffirm, the repentant sinner was
ultimately turning or returning to God. In all times, He is the ultimate object
of faith. Even today when we ask men to believe in Jesus Christ as their personal
savior, we are asking for an ultimate commitment to God. He is the one who
has revealed that salvation is available through faith in Christ. Moreover, a
rejection of Christ constitutes a refusal to believe God’s word about Christ; it
is a rejection of God Himself.
d. SPECIFIC
REVEALED CONTENT OF SALVATION
All the items
discussed so far have remained constant as the dispensations changed. But not
everything in regard to salvation is constant. It seems clear that the specific
revealed content to be believed changes at various times in history. One may
believe that at all times men have believed in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ,
for salvation. But still he cannot deny that at various times God has given
more information than previously specified about that Christ. For the one who
does not hold that men at all times have consciously known about and believed
in Jesus, the conclusion that the specific revealed content changes is
especially clear. There are several key points in connection with this matter.
First, it is
important to remember that since in each economy the content is what God has
revealed, belief in the content for that age is belief in the ultimate
object of faith, God. The believer is ultimately trusting God when he responds
positively to the truth for his dispensation: believing in the promises (age of
promise), agreeing that God will forgive and cleanse the sin of the one who in
faith offers sacrifice (age of law), or placing his faith and trust in Jesus as
Savior (age of grace). Thus, it is not, for example, the performance of the
sacrifices or a belief in the sacrificial system per se that saved someone
living under the Mosaic law. Instead, what saved a
person then was a commitment to the God who had revealed that sin was to be
expiated through sacrifices made in faith that God would give atonement.
Therefore, in agreeing to respond positively to the specific content for any
given age, the believer was ultimately responding to the God who revealed the
content. Romans 4:3, for example, says that Abraham believed God and it
was counted to him for righteousness. Of course, someone might respond, “He
believed the promises, didn’t he?” Certainly, he did, but the point is that
in doing so, he was believing the God who gave the
promises.
The second point
about the content of revealed truth is especially important. The content of
faith is cumulative throughout Scripture. This should not seem strange in
view of progressive revelation, but nonetheless, it needs explanation. There
must be a message at all times (a gospel, so to speak) which tells men about
God and His plan for salvation and urges them to respond. From the beginning
through the time of the law, the information that God had revealed about
salvation {information that could have been put into a message, even if it
never was in terms of all it involved) was cumulative as revelation progressed.
This means that an individual was not to ignore whatever God had said about
Himself and His method of salvation in previous ages. (The amplification of
revelation might require that man express his faith in different ways. However,
that is a different matter that I shall discuss shortly.)
Thus whatever God
has presented to be believed in one age may be amplified and/or supplemented in
another age, but it is not canceled. For example, the person responding in
faith for salvation under the Mosaic law is also
responding to the God of the promises to Abraham, the God of the Exodus, the
God of the Noahic covenant. Consequently, the believer living in the time of
the Mosaic law is not to ignore that a reason for believing in God is that he
has given certain promises to Abraham that are also applicable to the one under
law. He may emphasize in his thinking what God has done for
The advent of the
age of grace maintains a certain continuity. What the Old
Testament pointed toward is fulfilled in Christ. When a person believes in
Christ as Savior, he is committing himself (whether or not he recognizes it) to
the God who brought
An example of a
message that included a rehearsal of all God had done in the past is Stephen’s
speech (Acts 7). Granted, the speech was an indictment against his listeners.
But the indictment is so strong because Stephen appeals over and over to what
God had done for
3. OLD TEST AMENT SACRIFICES
In order to
understand the idea of cumulative content more fully, we must know what that
content was. Two broad strands run throughout the Old Testament content
presented to man as the reason for placing faith in God.
First, the
entire Old Testament (viewed as comprising several dispensations or not
viewed dispensationally at all) teaches that blood sacrifice is of utmost
importance in order for man to maintain a right standing before God. (The
exact soteriological relevance of these sacrifices will be discussed later.)
This teaching appears before Leviticus 17:11. As early as Genesis 3:15, it is
seen at someone must die in order ultimately to defeat sin. The theme of
sacrifice is continued in Genesis 3:21, God covered Adam and Eve with animal
skins. Obviously, animals had been killed to provide this covering. In
Genesis 4, Abel’s blood sacrifice was acceptable to God, whereas Cain’s offering
was not. It seems that Cain demonstrated disbelief in refusing to bring a blood
sacrifice. In view of Genesis 3:21, the information about blood sacrifice would
have been available to Cain. He chose to ignore it and thereby expressed his
rejection of God and of his method of coming to Himself. During the time of Noah
(Gen. 8:20), sacrifices were still important. God did not abrogate that
revelation. Certainly, during the time of Abraham, sacrifices were of crucial
importance in man’s relation to God. We see Abraham sacrificing to God on
various occasions (e.g., Gen. 12:7-8; 13:3-4). The Abrahamic covenant
itself was ratified with Abraham as God passed among the pieces of the
sacrifice on the altar (Gen. 15). In subjecting Abraham to the ultimate
test of his faith, God requested him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22, a
passage that beautifully prefigures Christ’s sacrifice). When God redeemed
In addition to
the theme of sacrifice, there is the theme of promises. Some promises concern
salvation from sin and thus overlap the theme of sacrifice. Others are of a
national, political, and social nature. Walter Kaiser has argued that the
theological center of the Old Testament canon is the notion of promise.19
One can hardly read Kaiser’s work and not be convinced that the concept of
promise is crucially important for the whole of Old Testament life.
Thus we see that
in each period of the Old Testament economy, the specific content revealed for
men to believe involved truths about sacrifices and promises. The change of dispensations
did not abrogate existing promises but rather supplemented and amplified them.
Passages such as Genesis 3:15-16, Genesis 9 (Noahic covenant), Genesis 12 and
15 (Abrahamic covenant), Deuteronomy 28-30 (Palestinian covenant), 2 Samuel 7
(Davidic covenant), and Jeremiah 31 (New Covenant) show that even though
dispensations changed, God did not abrogate His promises. He amplified and
clarified them.
Promises were not
only important in terms of believing that in the future God would do what He
promised. They were also important from the standpoint of past fulfillment. The
ways God had demonstrated His faithfulness in the past formed a basis for trust
in Him for salvation and for fulfillment of promises in the future. Paul states very clearly that the giving
of the law did not nullify the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:16-17). God’s
revelation concerning His promises is cumulative.
The specific content
to be believed, then was cumulative, and it was composed of two major
components: sacrifice and promise.20 The believing Jew, therefore,
whether he understood what he was doing or not, was committing himself to the
God of the promises, the God who had faithfully formed the nation of Israel and
brought her out of Egypt and into the land, and the God who had revealed all
along that sir~ could be atoned for by means of blood sacrifice. This is what
it means to say that the content of faith in the Old Testament is cumulative.
The person who committed himself in faith to that God, and all that He had
revealed about His saving and keeping power, was saved.
But only since
the time of Jesus Christ has the revealed content to be believed coincided
entirely with the basis, or ground, of faith. During the age of grace, God has
revealed the fulness of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ (the
basis of salvation in any age). Neither God’s acts in history nor His
revelation concerning His acts had given man the complete content about Christ.
We must be careful not to think that during the Old Testament economy it was
necessary to accept the content over and over again to be saved. For example,
one might think that since during Old Testament times a sacrifice was required
for each sin, the person was being saved with each sacrifice. As we shall see,
such a view is a misunderstanding of the function of Old Testament sacrifices
as well as a confusion of the requirement for salvation with the expression of
faith that a saved person would make. Moreover, merely doing sacrifices never justified
anyone. What did justify the repentant sinner was a one-time commitment to the
God who had revealed that sin was to be atoned for by blood sacrifice (as well
as whatever else He revealed for that economy). The Old Testament believer
might fallout of fellowship with the Lord and need to return to Him, but there
does not seem to be an indication that once a person was saved he could lose
that salvation and needed to be saved over again.
e. BELIEVER’S
EXPRESSION OF SALVATION
Just as the
specific content of faith changes as revelation progresses (the content is
cumulative), so there is an aspect of change in regard to the fifth element of
salvation, the believer’s expression of his salvation. It is crucially
important not to confuse this element with the requirement for salvation. The
requirement (faith) confronts a nonbeliever
as he contemplates God’s message of salvation. The specific expression of faith
confronts the believer as he
contemplates how he is to live out the salvation he has already been given. It
is his way of responding to God in obedience as evidence that he has already
believed.
The believer’s expression
of faith must take into
consideration at any given point in history three kinds of elements. First,
elements that are constant, such as the moral law.
Since the moral law reflects the nature of an unchanging God, it, too, is
always binding. Thus, at all times, a believer is to express that fact that
he is saved by adhering to the moral law. Such adherence will not save him, but
it will provide evidence that he already has met the requirement of salvation.
Second, in any given age, there seem to be elements that conclude with a
given age. A good example or this is the bringing of animal sacrifices.
Through the time of the Mosaic law, the offering of
such sacrifices was important as the believer expressed his trust in God.
However, with the advent of the age of grace, the believer no longer
expresses his devotion to God through bringing animal sacrifices. There are
ways by which he can receive
cleansing from sin as a believer and express his devotion to God, but animal
sacrifice is not one of them. Finally, there are items in the believer’s
expression of his faith that commence in a given age. For example, in the age
of grace the believer can express his obedience to the Savior through
observance of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. Before the age of grace, such
expressions of faith were not open to the believer.
A final point in
regard to the expression of faith is simply to reiterate that though it may
change from one age to another, it does not entail a change in God’s one method
of saving men. How could it, since it has nothing to do with what God and the
nonbeliever do in order to bring the nonbeliever to the point of (in New
Testament terms) conversion, regeneration, and justification?
In the previous
pages, I have suggested what I take to be God’s one method of salvation as
taught by all of Scripture. Even the items that vary from one dispensation to
the next (specific revealed content of faith and expression of faith) do not
necessitate multiple ways of salvation. Moreover, it seems obvious that one
could hold the kind of position I have espoused and remain a consistent
dispensationalist. Nothing mentioned seems to contradict anything essential to
dispensationalism.
Our discussion so
far has stressed the unity in God’s method of salvation. But is anything
different (besides the items mentioned) about being a believer in Old Testament
times, as opposed to New Testament times? Certainly the method of salvation is
the same, but is everything else equal as well? This question is important for
a proper understanding not only of the two testaments, but also for a proper
conception of the distinctions between biblical Judaism and biblical
Christianity. Moreover, in specifying the differences between the two, we want
to be careful not to contradict what has just been presented, that is, we do
not want to derive differences that will necessitate multiple ways of
salvation, since it has already been argued that God uses only one way.
What, then, seem to be the key differences?
The first and
obvious difference is that the content of faith presented to the believer and
the expression of his faith differ, as has been noted.
Second, the
believer’s relation to the law has changed (an aspect of the change particularly involved
in the expression of his faith). The Mosaic system distinguishes between the
moral law, the ceremonial law (rules and regulations regarding clean or
unclean, as well as the whole sacrificial system and all the regulations about
the Tabernacle, for example), and the civil law (application of the moral law
to certain features of Israel’s community life).21 But the New
Testament believer in Jesus Christ is no longer under the civil law or the
ceremonial law. God’s standards of morality do not change. The two testaments
take different approaches toward obedience to the law. Put simply (perhaps too simply),
the Old Testament approach can be characterized as “do and you shall live,”
whereas in the New Testament the approach seems to be “you are; therefore, do.”
But the oft-heard comment that in the New Testament believers keep the law out
of love, obviously implying that Old Testament believers kept it out of
obligation, is not consistent with passages such as Psalm 119: 16,35,47, 70, 77,92, 143, 174, which speak of delight in the commandments
of the Lord.
Third, the New
Testament believer receives a much greater enablement for obedience to God in virtue
of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Old Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit coming upon a person for
a special enduement of power for a particular task (e.g., the case of Saul as
recorded in 1 Sam. 10:6; 11:6; and 18:12; the case of craftsmen working on the
Tabernacle as noted in Exod. 31:1-11; Micah as recorded in Mic. 3:8; the
seventy elders as recorded in Num. 11:16-17,24-30; and in the cases of some of
Israel’s judges as seen in Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14). But
there is no mention of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as found in the New
Testament (
Fourth, the ΄εν
Χριδτώ (en christō) relationship, union of the believer with
Christ, is part and parcel of the New Testament believer’s salvation, whereas
that relationship does not pertain to salvation of an Old Testament saint. Such
union with Christ is accomplished by means of the ministry of the Holy Spirit
whereby He baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). But
the Holy Spirit did not begin to perform that mini until the day of Pentecost
(Acts 2).
Finally, though
there was forgiveness for sin in both the Old and the New Testaments,23 sin was only fully and finally paid for when
Christ made His sacrifice.24 This point is
fully developed and explained below.
SOTERIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES
At this point, I
should like to consider the function of the sacrificial system in the Old
Testament. In particular, I am interested in clarifying the soteriological
function of Old Testament sacrifices.
The Mosaic system
of sacrifices is very complex, and it is not always easy to distinguish the
meaning and function of the various sacrifices. Nonetheless, for our purposes
it would seem possible to clarify at least some of the different offering
that Scripture mentions. First, there is the עלה (‘ōlâ) or burnt
offering (Lev. 1; 6:8-13). Payne suggests that this offering was the “continual
burnt offering” (mentioned in Exod. 29:38-42) and that it symbolized the idea
of complete and continuous atonement and consecration.25 Second,
the מנחה
(minhâ) or meal offering (Lev. 2; 6:14-23)
symbolized especially the devotion of one’s person and property to the Lord.26
Third, there is the category of offerings designated as peace offerings
(Lev. 3:7). Three offerings fall under this category, i.e., the thank offering,
the vow, and the freewill offering. Oehler distinguishes the three as
follows:
The ףודה
זבח
[zebah tôdâ] being offered
without having been previously promised for some benefit received, and thus
referring to a favor not already supplicated. . . , was the highest among the שלמים
[shelāmîm]. The vow, נדר [neder], on the contrary, is a promised offering usually presented after the reception of some benefit
previously entreated; yet the one making a promise might connect an offering
immediately with his prayer, and it would fall under this species; but the נדר
[neder]
always refers to something distinctly prayed for. And lastly, the נךבה
[nedābâ] is every free gift for which there was
no other occasion than the will of the offerer, whom his heart impelled to show
his thankful sense of all the blessings which the goodness of God had bestowed
on him.27
The final three
offerings are the sin, guilt, and trespass offerings. The precise distinction between the
three is a matter of debate, a debate that lies beyond the scope and purpose of
this study. Suffice it to say, these are the offerings that deal specifically
with atoning for sin.28
What does the
Mosaic system teach about the meaning of these sacrifices? In other words, how
are they to be understood? What is their purpose? Unfortunately, there is no
unanimity in regard to the meaning of sacrifices. In examining this topic, we
shall consider it from two distinct perspectives, (1) that of the idea behind
the sacrifice, and (2) that of the relation between the sacrifice and the
sacrificer.
The idea behind sacrifice. Here there is indeed no unanimity.
Oehler is helpful in speaking of the basic idea of pre-Mosaic sacrifice,
although our main concern is with the Mosaic system. He claims the ideas of
expiation and atonement are not the most significant ideas behind pre-Mosaic sacrifices
(although they are hinted at.) Oehler writes:
The pre-Mosaic offerings had the signification of thank-offerings and offerings
of supplication, though a propitiatory element is connected with the
burnt-offering (first mentioned Gen. viii. 20)
lying in the ניחח ךיח [ręah nîhōh] (literally, odor of satisfaction), through which the sacrifice has
an appeasing effect, see ver. 21. Offerings for atonement, in the strict sense,
are not mentioned in the Old Testament before the introduction of the Mosaic
sacrificial law. The book of Job, too, which brings before us the customs of
the age of the patriarchs, represents, in chap. i. 5, xlii. 8, the presenting
of burnt-offerings for sin committed, and avoids the term ככך [kipper], which denotes expiation in the terminology of Mosaic
sacrifice (giving, instead, the more general term קדש [qiddash]).29
According to
Oehler, the offerings were not expiatory in the strict sense because “an expiatory offering, in the strict sense,
presupposes the revelation of divine holiness in the law, and the entrance of
the people into covenant relation with the holy God.”30 But it would
seem that expiation in the strict sense is not part of pre-Mosaic sacrifices.
Nonetheless, expiation is present in some sense, as even Oehler’s evidence indicates.
Of course, he is also correct in pointing out the significance of thanksgiving and
supplication in many of the offerings.
J. Barton Payne
delineates four different approaches to sacrifice, and rejects the first three.
First, some of a liberal persuasion have
suggested that sacrifice was intended to be a meal, nourishing the deity
(cf. Gen. 8:20). As Payne suggests, this theory does not square with Old
Testament teachings, for among other things, Psalm 50:9-13 and Isaiah 40:16 indicate
that God has no need of sacrifices for any purposes.31 Second,
there are those who understand Old Testament sacrifices as gifts. Payne
points, for example, to Vos’s claim that the two main ends served by sacrifice
are expiation and consecration.32 Payne claims that although
there is an element of truth in this conception. it
does not explain the necessity for blood. It is estrangement from God that
necessitates blood, not the desire to consecrate oneself.33 It is interesting that Payne does not focus on the fact that
Vos specifies both expiation and consecration. He restricts his comments solely
to the matter of consecration. Third, the Canaanites viewed sacrifice as
a means of communion with deity. Such communion was specifically
physical, i.e., they considered themselves to be eating the blood of the deity,
for example. As Payne accurately responds, “Though Scripture surely believes in
communi9n with God (Exod. 24:11), this blessed communion transpires in a moral
and spiritual sphere only. It arises, moreover, as a result of the sacrifice,
not as the explanation by which to account for the sacrifice.”34 Finally,
Payne argues that the correct explanation of the matter is that sacrifices were
propitiatory, or atoning.35 It seems to me that all of the
notions of expiation, propitiation, and consecration are involved in sacrifices.
That the sacrifices were atoning can hardly be denied. The kinds of sacrifices
required necessitate that atonement for sin was one of the ideas behind
sacrifices. Reflection on the kinds of sacrifices (peace offerings, for
example) suggests that the ideas of consecration and worship are involved as
well.
But why could
such sacrifices atone? As Elliott notes, sacrifices per se, apart from
underlying spiritual motivation, could not bring atonement. Jeremiah’s
complaints against sacrifice (Jer. 7:21-26) are to be interpreted not as
teaching that sacrifice and the sacrificial system have no value, but that
without a repentant and obedient heart, the offering of a sacrifice is
worthless from the standpoint of atonement.36 God never has been and
never will be satisfied with mere ritual.
The relation between the sacrifice and
the sacrificer. Again, we find varying interpretations.
This is especially true in the case of those sacrifices given in order to make
atonement for sin. Vos outlines three basic theories in relation the
matter of the offerer’s relation to the offering. First, he outlines
what might be called the “no theory” theory. According to this view,
held by many of the Wellhausen school of criticism, neither the Old Testament
in general nor the law in particular present any coherent, consistent theory of
sacrifice.37 The second view is what Vos calls the purely symbo1ic
theory. According to this theory, the process of sacrifice portrays certain
things that must be done to the offerer and will be done. Consequently, this
view holds that what must take place is entirely internal or subjective to man.
As Vos states, this interpretation of the sacrifices sees them much along the
same lines as do the moral and govermental theories of the atonement in
relation to Christ’s sacrifice.38 The final theory is the symbolico-vicarious
theory. In comparing it to the purely symbolic theory, Vos writes:
If the latter assumes that the further steps continue to portray what will
be done within man to modify this, the symbolico-vicarious theory presupposes the
recognition by ritual itself that nothing can be done in man himself with the
proper effect, and that, therefore, a
substitute must take his place. All the successive acts of the ritual apply
to this substitute, not to the offerer. It becomes something done, to be sure,
for the benefit of the offerer, but done outside of him. It will thus be seen, that
the objectivity and the vicariousness of the process go together. On the same
principle adoption of the purely symbolical theory carries with itself
exclusion of the vicarious element and of the objectivity.39
The third of
these theories is clearly supported by such passages as Genesis 22:13;
Leviticus 1:4; 16:21-22; 17:11; 19:20, 21; and Numbers 6:11. In spite of such
evidence, however, Gerrish claims that the substitution theory cannot be
upheld. What is clear, according to Gerrish, is that “the offering is one
with which the worshiper can by faith identify
himself, not so much an offering which bears his punishment in his stead.”40 Thus,
Gerrish holds that the theory presented is representative, not substitutionary.
Although it is true that the offerer is identifying himself with the sacrifice,
it would also seem clear that the sacrifice is given in his place. Such
passages as those mentioned above would seem to confirm this point.
The Old Testament
teaching on sacrifices seems to indicate that the sacrifices included four
basic functions or usages.
First, the sacrifices serve a governmental or
theocratic function. (Obviously, before the time of Moses no such function
was served.) This function corresponds to the civil part of the law. Under the
Mosaic system, the Israelite was related to God by physical birth as a Jew
through the theocracy. God was the ruler in
A second function
of the sacrifices in the Old Testament was a topological function. Sacrifices
at all times during the Old Testament had this function. Hebrews 10:1, speaking
of the Mosaic law and its sacrifices, says that the law is not the image (είκων, eikōn), that is the exact representation, of
what was to come but it was a shadow (σκιά, skia)
of it. In contrasting the
meaning of the two words Wescott writes:
The words contain one of the very few illustrations which are taken from
art in the N.T. The ‘shadow’ is the dark outlined figure cast by the object—as
in the legend of the origin of the bas-relief—contrasted with the complete representation
[είκων, eikōn] produced by the help of colour and
solid mass.41
Bringing meaning
of the words out of the realm of art and into the context of our discussion, we
can see how the figure of the Old Testament sacrifices being a shadow actually
carries the idea of their being a foreshadowing of something to come. Given
this kind of language, the writer of Hebrews seems to be stating that the Old
Testament sacrifices were a type of what was to come in Christ’s sacrifice.
It is important
to distinguish between the typological truth present in the Old Testament
sacrifices and the degree of understanding of the typological truth possessed
by the Old Testament believer. Even though it must be granted that sacrifices
from the time of Adam prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it is moot as
to how many people during Old Testament times understood all of this. As
revelation progressed, more information was given so that in the sacrifices one
could discern a prefiguring of a Messiah who would be sacrificed, even if no
one (unlikely) in fact ever did fully understand that typology. The point is
that although the Old Testament sacrifices were invested with typological
significance there is no warrant to say that the individual by bringing such sacrifices
was showing that he placed his faith and trust in Jesus Christ, or even necessarily
in a coming Messiah, for salvation. He may have understood that they
pointed to a Messiah. However, from the standpoint of what God had revealed, as
I have argued throughout, it seems most difficult to accept the notion that the
Old Testament believer perceived that the sacrifices pointed to Jesus of
Nazareth. The second point in regard to the typological function of the sacrifices
is that even though they foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice by type, the
typological nature per se of the sacrifices neither saved nor cleansed anyone.
In other words, the typological function of the sacrifices was just that,
typological; it was not soteriological.
A third function
of the sacrifices was their role in worship. Obviously, by bringing a
sacrifice for atonement (a non-sweet-savor sacrifice) and thereby agreeing
with God’s revealed means for handling sin, the
believer was performing an act that brought glory to God. However, those sacrifices
(sweet-savor sacrifices) that were not brought in order to secure atonement for
sin, seem to be involved in the act of simply worshiping one’s God (Lev. 2:2, 9—grain
offering; Lev. 3—peace offering; 1 Sam. 1:3—example of an occasion on which
worship and sacrifice are connected). Obviously, such sacrifices did not
necessarily have any soteriological function. As to their relationship to
Christ’s sacrifice, Payne has sketched some of the ways in which these
sacrifices have foreshadowed Christ and the believer’s relation to Him.42
A fourth
function of the sacrifices was their role in soteriology, or their soteriological
function. In regard to this matter, there are many pitfalls to be avoided.
First, the sacrificial system in the Old Testament has a relation to the
initial reception of salvation (what in New Testament terminology would be
referred to as the point of justification), but it is not what many might think
it is. It is clear that merely performing sacrifices never saved anyone.
In fact, even if the sacrifices were offered in faith with a repentant heart,
the public offering aspect of the sacrifice itself did not give the offerer
salvation. As we have already seen, the sacrifices were part of the ceremonial
aspect of the law. As Paul says in Romans 3:20, no one is justified
by doing the works of the law. If the sacrifices qua sacrifices did not
justify (whether given with a repentant heart or not), what, then, was their
relation to a person coming to salvation? In accepting the God of
Although the Old
Testament sacrifices had a relation to justification, their main function,
soteriologically speaking, was in the sanctification process. Certainly, the
sacrifices that were brought in worship of God or in consecration of the
individual (sweet-savor sacrifices) would strengthen the believer’s
relationship with God. However, offering sacrifices in believing faith also
brought cleansing from sin and the restoration of fellowship with God.
Performing substitutionary and expiatory sacrifices seems to be more involved
with cleansing the sin of a believer than with bringing a person to salvation.
Job, when he offered a sacrifice for cleansing (Job 42:7-9), was obviously
saved at the time he gave the sacrifice (the Old Testament abounds with such
examples). The expiatory sacrifices then, seem to be primarily involved with
the sanctification process rather than having a soteriological function.
Again, we must
recognize that merely giving sacrifices, without a repentant heart and a
believing attitude that God would forgive, would not suffice to atone (Ps.
40:6-10; 51:10, 16ff.; Isa. 1:11-15; Micah 6:6-8). The case of Job is most
helpful in this respect as well. Before Job offered the sacrifice, he had
already repented of his sin in dust and ashes. A comparison of sanctification
in the Old and New Testaments would show that when the New Testament believer
sins, in order to restore fellowship with the Lord he must receive cleansing
from the sin. In order to continue to grow, he must confess his sin in
believing faith that on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice God will cleanse him
from sin (1 John 1:9). The Old Testament believer also confessed his sin, but
in addition, he brought in believing faith a sacrifice, since God had revealed
that sin would be handled in that way. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the public
offering had to accompany the repentance of the believer. Once the all-sufficient
sacrifice of Christ had been made, the repentant believer need not give another
sacrifice in order to have cleansing.
When sacrifices
were presented with repentant faith, did the offerer actually receive
forgiveness at that time? The Old Testament clearly teaches that sacrifices
brought in repentant faith did result in God’s forgiveness being granted,
as seen in Leviticus 1:4; 4:26-31; 16:20-22; 17:11; Psalms 25, 32, 51, 103,
130; Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 18:22 in the Old Testament and Hebrews 9:13 in the
New Testament.43 This stands in clear opposition to the idea that
the Old Testament teaches that unintentional sins could be atoned for and
forgiven, whereas intentional sins (sins committed “with a high hand”) could
not be forgiven.44 Careful study of the Old Testament does not
support such a claim. Kaiser put the matter well when he wrote:
How many sins could be atoned by such a system in
Thus we see that
the sacrificial system was useful in the sanctification process, and that the
one who offered sacrifices in believing faith did receive forgiveness. As a
matter of fact, at that time offering sacrifices was crucial to retaining a
right relationship with God. As Hobart Freeman has so aptly written:
. . . sacrifice was not to the Hebrew some
crude, temporary, and merely typical institution, nor a substitute for that
dispensation until better things were provided by revelation, but as will be
shown, sacrifice was then the only sufficient
means of remaining in harmonious relation to God. It was adequate for the
period in which God intended it should serve. This is not the same as
saying Levitical sacrifice was on an equal with the sacrifice of Christ, nor
that the blood of bulls and goats could, from God’s side, take away sins: but
it is recognizing the reality of the divine institution of Mosaic worship, and
looking, as too often Old Testament interpreters fail to do, at sacrifice from
the viewpoint of the Hebrew in the Old Testament dispensation. Sacrifice, to
the pious Hebrew, was not something unimportant, or simply a perfunctory
ritual, but it was an important element in his moral obedience to the revealed
will of God.47
So, it can be
demonstrated that Old Testament sacrifices did result in forgiveness of sin.
Someone might then suggest, “Let’s continue the sacrificial system now. It
would suffice for sin, wouldn’t it? In fact, it’s as efficacious as Christ’s
sacrifice, isn’t it?” The answer is that although sacrifices were once the
means for maintaining a harmonious relation to God, continuing such sacrifices
would mistake the relation of those sacrifices to Christ’s sacrifice and miss
the importance of Christ’s sacrifice. The answers to the imagined questions
show something of the soteriological relation of Old Testament sacrifices to
Christ’s sacrifice.
There are several
important aspects to the relation of the Old Testament sacrifices to Christ’s
sacrifice. First, Scripture is very clear that the system of the
law, including the sacrifices, is superceded and done away with by the
sacrifice of Christ (cf. Gal. 3:24-25; the book of Hebrews). Second, as
we have seen, Old Testament sacrifices actually covered sin and assured the
believer of cleansing and forgiveness. However, it was the sacrifice of Christ
that actually once and for all removed the sin (Heb. 9:13; 10:4, 11-14). If Old
Testament sacrifices had actually made a full and final objective payment for
sins so as to remove them totally, then it could not be said that Christ’s
sacrifice paid for such sin. Of course, that would contradict the fact that
Scripture teaches that Christ’s sacrifice did pay for the sins of all men (Heb.
2:9; 7:27; 10:10; Rom. 6:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). In fact, such a position would even
contradict a passage in the Old Testament itself, i.e., Isaiah 53:6. If all
sins in the Old Testament economy are completely removed by animal sacrifice,
then it makes no sense for an Old Testament prophet to write that the Lord laid
on Him (the Messiah) the iniquity of us all. Even if one refused to
interpret the passage messianically and chose to see it fulfilled in
The Old Testament
sacrifices pointed to (typological function) the sacrifice of Christ, which
would fully handle sin (even if the Jew did not understand the typology of the
sacrifices). On the ground of His sacrifice to which the Old Testament
sacrifices pointed, the Old Testament believer who in repentant faith brought a
sacrifice could be assured that God would cover, cleanse, and forgive such sin
(soteriological function). But the objective deed, from God’s standpoint, that
would completely pay for and remove sin was only offered on
Another reason
that Old Testament sacrifices are not to be continued is that we can see that
the scope of the respective sacrifices greatly differs. Under the Old Testament
system, the general rule was that when a sacrifice for sin was made, sin was
actually forgiven, but only the sin for which the sacrifice was made was
expiated. Of course, the sacrifice made on the Day of Atonement covered more
than just one sin, but even so, it did not cover all sin of all time. On the
contrary, the word of Scripture in regard to Christ’s sacrifice is that it is
all-inclusive, once for all, never to be repeated (Heb. 10:12, 14). Certainly,
if Christ’s one sacrifice pays for all sin, there is no need to go back to Old
Testament sacrifices. What could they possibly add, since Christ’s sacrifice
already provides atonement for all
sin?
There are many
misunderstandings and seeming contradictions about the subject of Old Testament
sacrifices. Someone might state that everything that has been said is
contradicted by Hebrews 10:4: “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and
goats to take away sins.” Moreover, the problem seems to become more
complicated by Hebrews 9:13, which indicates that the blood of bulls and goats
did cleanse from sin. There seems to be a tremendous contradiction between the
two passages as well as with the content of the preceding discussion. The
seriousness of the problem can be seen in that one could incorrectly assume
that Hebrews 10:4 means that no one in the Old Testament period was actually
saved, that Old Testament believers had to await the sacrifice of Christ before
their faith was actually “validated,” when they became saved (even though
dead), or that there really was no forgiveness of sin when it was repented of.
These problems can be resolved by a proper understanding of the verses and concepts
involved.
First, Hebrews 9:13 does not relate to internal
cleansing and forgiveness from sin. As Westcott notes, the verse is actually
referring to “the ceremonial purity which enabled the Jew to enjoy the full
privileges of his covenant worship and fellowship with the external
Though Hebrews 9:13 does not refer to internal cleansing from sin,
it is incorrect to assume that sacrifices in the Old Testament were relevant to
ceremonial cleansing only, and thus did not really bring forgiveness of sin. We
have already examined many passages from the Old Testament that indicate there
was internal cleansing and forgiveness from sin. Moreover, Hebrews 10:4 seems to
be talking in its context not about external, ceremonial matters, but internal
matters. But, by resolving the apparent contradiction between Hebrews 9:13 and
10:4, we have not removed the problem altogether.
A final
resolution to this difficulty seems to be possible only in the light of two
crucial distinctions. The first is the distinction between the provision of
atonement (the objective work of God) and the application of the atonement (the
subjective work of God). The second is the distinction between the forgiveness
and the removal of sin. In regard to the first distinction, in order for a
person to be saved, two conditions are necessary: (1) someone must provide and
pay for the basis of that salvation, and (2) someone must take the salvation
that has been purchased and apply it to the sinner in need of salvation. The
former aspect, providing and paying for the salvation is called the objective
aspect of God’s atoning work. It is what He had to do as a basis for offering
and applying salvation to any specific person. It is a work that is performed
externally to all subjects (persons), and in that respect it is called “objective.”
When the objective work has been performed, salvation is potentially available
to the sinner. The basis for salvation has been provided, so that it is
possible to be saved. However, just because salvation is provided does not mean
that anyone is in fact saved. The actualization of that salvation in the life
of the individual can only come when God has applied that salvation to the person.
Since this aspect of salvation is done within the life of the person (subject),
it is called the subjective aspect of salvation.
In regard to the
difference between removal of sin and forgiveness of sin, we can say, using the
terminology set forth above, that the removal of sin refers to the payment
for sin, the objective aspect of salvation. On the other hand, forgiveness
comes when God applies salvation to the subject or cleanses him from sin. Thus,
it refers to the subjective side of salvation. That there is a genuine
distinction should be clear in that one can objectively pay for sin’s removal
even if no one applies that salvation to himself, whereas no one’s sins are
actually forgiven until he subjectively applies what has been provided for him
objectively. Moreover, it is possible to cover (through partial objective
payment via animal sacrifice) and forgive a sin without completely objectively
paying for and removing it.
With those two
distinctions in mind, we can resolve our problem. In Hebrews 10:4 the writer
states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot remove sin; it does not state that
when such sacrifices were given, there was no forgiveness. The testimony of
the Old Testament is that there was forgiveness when sacrifices were given in
faith. The point, then, must be that mere animal sacrifices, though acts external
(objective) to the sinner, could never from God’s perspective take care of the
objective dimensions of atonement. Only Christ’s objective work could
provide the full and final payment for salvation from sin and make it
potentially available (we can now see better why the sacrifice of Christ had to
be at all times the objective basis, or ground, for salvation). Thus, Old
Testament sacrifices could only in type foreshadow His sacrifice. They could
not pay for sin so as to remove it; only the sacrifice of Christ could do that.
However, that did not mean that the sacrifices were totally worthless, for there
was still the subjective side of salvation (in addition, the sacrifices gave a “down
payment” on sin-objective function), that is, the need for application of the
atonement and, in particular, for forgiveness. On the basis of the believer’s
trust in the revealed content for faith for his particular age, God could and
did subjectively apply salvation and forgiveness to the repentant sinner. Thus,
the problem can be resolved. When the objective work of a sacrifice was given,
it could not fully and finally pay for sin (the provision of atonement).
Hebrews 10:4 is upheld. Nonetheless, since it had been given in faith and
obedience to what God had revealed for that age, God could and did grant the
sinner forgiveness (subjective side of salvation) on the ultimate grounds of
Christ’s sacrifice, which would someday be given. All the Old Testament
comments about forgiveness of sin can be upheld. In fact, it would seem that
this resolution does the most justice to all the verses involved. We do not
conclude that Old Testament sacrifices had the same amount or kind of efficacy
as did the sacrifice of Christ, but neither do we derive the unwarranted conclusion
that during Old Testament times no one was saved or no one’s sins were cleansed
and forgiven.49
This study, then,
has investigated some key issues pertaining to the topic of salvation in the
Old Testament. As we reflect upon the unity and the diversity within God’s
gracious plan of salvation for all time, we can only repeat what Paul said as
he reflected on the mercy of God, “Oh, the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
judgments and unfathomable His ways! . . . For from Him and through Him and to
Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen”
(Rom. 11:33,36).
NOTES
1. James K. Zink, “Salvation in the Old Testament:
A Central Theme,” Encounter 25 (Autumn 1964):407. Zink explains that the term “salvation”
has three basic meanings in the Old Testament: (1) national salvation in the sense
of protection from foes and deliverance from exile, (2) individual salvation
from the results of sin, deliverance from enemies, disease, and trouble, and
(3) eschatological salvation from sin issuing in a richer life in communion with
GOD in the present world and in the afterlife.
2. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (London: James Clarke, 1960), 2:367.
3. J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962),
p. 241. See also pp. 72-74.
4. Daniel P. Fuller, “The Hermeneutics of
Dispensationalism” (Th.D. diss., Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957),
pp. 144-45. See also pp. 151 and 144-81.
5. Payne, pp. 467-68. See also J. Barton
Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 31-32, for a more blatant statement on this
issue.
6. C. I. Scofield, ed., Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1945), p.
1115.
7. Ibid., p. 1245.
8. Fuller, pp. 153ff.
9. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), pp.113-16.
10. E. Schuyler English, ed., New Scofield Reference Bible (New York:
Oxford U. Press, 1967), p. 1124.
11. Ryrie, pp. 44-46.
12. George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,”
in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed.
Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1977), pp. 20-21, 27.
13. Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, reprint (Minneapolis: Klock &
Klock, 1978) p. 459.
14. Hodge, p. 370.
15. Ibid., pp. 371-72. See also Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, p. 241,
and Hodge, p. 372, who writes, “The Apostle proves that the specific promise
which was the object of the faith of the patriarch was the promise of redemption
through Christ. That promise they were required to believe; and that the true
people of God did believe.”
16. Payne, Imminent Appearing, p. 128.
17. The basic format is suggested in Ryrie,
pp. 123-26. However, I am modifying and amplifying it. The fifth element in
this series and some aspects of its amplification were suggested to me by Paul
D. Feinberg.
18. Snaith points out that in the Old
Testament God is portrayed as the savior; see Norman
H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the
Old Testament (New York: Schocken, 1975), pp. 85-86. For the concept of God
as the object of faith, see also Henry McKeating, “Divine Forgiveness in the
Psalms,” Scottish Journal of Theology
18 (March 1965):78.
19. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 20-40. Kaiser elaborates this theme throughout
the book.
20. God’s ethical standards, of course, run
throughout the whole Old Testament, but they give man an awareness of God’s
standards and man’s own failure. They are not per se part of the content to be
believed as one trusts God for salvation.
21. Kaiser, pp. 114-18.
22. Oehler, p. 462.
23. I shall elaborate this point in the
following portion of the chapter.
24. It would also be appropriate to note that
in the New Testament the eternal destiny of the believer is stated much more
clearly than in the Old Testament. Redemption of the whole person, including
his body, and glorification of the believer indeed are stresses in the New
Testament that are seldom mentioned in the Old Testament. This does not mean,
though, that Old Testament believers are not to be resurrected and glorified.
This is simply to point out a difference in amount and content of information
available in the Old Testament as opposed to the New Testament, not a
difference in the final status of the Old Testament saint.
25. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, p. 386.
26. Ibid.
27. Oehler, p. 288.
28. For discussions of the distinctions see
Oehler, pp. 300-303; Payne, Theology of
the Older Testament, pp. 386ff.; Norman H. Snaith, “The Sin-Offering and
the Guilt-Offering,” Vetus Testamentum
15 (January 1965); and Geerhardus Vos, Biblical
Theo1ogy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 188-89.
29. Oehler, p. 263.
30. Ibid.
31. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, p. 382.
32. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 173.
33. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, pp. 382-83.
34. Ibid., p. 383.
35. Ibid.
36. Ralph H. Elliott, “Atonement in the Old
Testament,” Review and Expositor 59
(January 1962):15.
37. Vos, p. 177.
38. Ibid., pp. 176-77.
39. Ibid., p. 177.
40. Brian A. Gerrish, “Atonement and ‘Saving
Faith’,” Theology Today 17 (July
1960):188.
41. B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), p.304.
42. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, pp. 385-88.
43. See McKeating article. See also Elliott,
p. 25, on the idea of the suffering servant’s sacrifice bringing forgiveness.
44. See Hobart Freeman, “The Problem of
Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices,” Bulletin
of Evangelical Theological Society 5 (1962):74 for explanation of three
views concerning the efficacy of Old Testament sacrifices.
45. Kaiser, pp. 117-18.
46. Snaith, “Distinctive Ideas,” pp. 84-85.
Snaith shows that God forgives in spite of
47. Freeman, p. 73.
48. Westcott, p. 261. See also p. 260.
49. I was greatly aided in coming to my
resolution of this problem by the comments of Kaiser, p. 118, and Freeman, pp.
76-77.
[In the process of preparing this study I have been greatly
aided by discussions and interaction with Duane Dunham, Paul Feinberg, Robert
Hughes, and Bruce Ware. I want to express my appreciation for their help.]